Questions for Truthers

[Dog Town]

No there's a high turnover rate for truthers except for the occasional re-emergence of a sock. ive been here since Dec 06...

Occasional?

 

[Myriad]

Basically what you're saying, and has been said many times on this forum, is that there is no debate. You're right, the "Truthers" are wrong.

I do in fact believe that I am right and the Truthers are wrong. However, that is not at all "what I'm saying" in the OP.

You've labeled and marginalized your opponent, so there can never be sincere debate.

The label I apply to advocates of 9/11 conspiracy theories or of narratives associated with such conspiracy theories (such as "Heiwa's axiom" or a Pentagon fly-over) is "Truther." As far as I know, that is a word they themselves selected and prefer. I usually even remember to capitalize it, which is a bit old-fashioned I suppose but it is a name of sorts.

I have in no way marginalized anyone.

Your advocating for a tactic that prevents discourse.

Not phrasing points as questions in no way prevents discourse. Neither does not requesting information from individuals when one is certain do not have that information in the first place. You can tell me what time it is, whether I've asked you what time it is or not. But if I don't think you know what time it is, or don't trust you to tell me what time it is even if you do know, then I should not ask. It's as simple as that.

Jref should just make a decision whether or not they want to continue allowing this discussion to take place. As it is now, biased moderation will make it impossible to ask any of the legitimate questions, and continue to discuss the enormous amount of information that continues to appear, in any kind of a friendly, civil and productive way.

If you wish to make a claim that biased moderation has taken place or is taking place (by me or anyone), please discuss that in Forum Management section and please be prepared to show evidence. You may start a new thread or contribute to one of many existing threads on the topic of bias in moderation.

[speaking as a mod]

Do not further discuss moderation issues in this thread.

[no longer speaking as a mod]

I think what is truly frustrating around here, is not how stupid and wrong the Twoofies are, but that there are aspects of the official story that are indefensible and buck up against anyone's critical thinking and reasoning skills.

I point out that you just used an insulting label for 9/11 Conspiracy Theory proponents when I have rarely if ever done so (and certainly not that one). In the same post in which you accused me of labeling and marginalizing a group.

There are plenty of threads in which you might discuss aspects of the official story that you feel are indefensible. You don't have to wait for someone to ask you why. Just present your case.

I can understand why you want to limit the discussion because in a real debate on 9/11, you would have to rely on the complete honesty of the Bush administration.

Your understanding is mistaken.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele you said that I excluded gregory and ibis from my list.

No, I said you seemed to. For example, this:

In the thread you linked me to I didn't see any conclusions reached or at any point Gregory changing his mind. He agreed with a minimal amount of things, but there was no resolution to the thread. Again, he is not the kind of twoofer I was talking about ignoring.

My bolding.

First, I never made a complete list. I stated a few names. Second, take note of when I said "etc". Those three letters imply that I am well aware that there are others but am simply not stating them at this time. I know there are more than, I stated, but I don't see the need to compile a list. I think its pretty safe to say that every member who posts in here on a regular basis knows all too well who is pointless to debate with.

Apparently not, as several members do continue to argue with, well, anyone.

Look, I don't have any problem with someone saying something like, "I have put so-and-so on ignore, and I recommend you do as well." I probably have as many people on Ignore currently as most of the regulars in CT.

I do have a problem with someone saying that a certain bunch of people are mentally ill and we all know who they are.

 

[Quad4_72]

I do have a problem with someone saying that a certain bunch of people are mentally ill and we all know who they are.

Alright well since you can't tell when a twoofer is mentally ill, or at the very least disturbed, let me give you a few hints so you can pick them out easier.

Heiwa claims that the twin towers are similar to pizza boxes and is supposedly an engineer.

Bill smith agrees with Heiwa.

Galileo identifies with a 15th century philosopher and believes that he is, in fact, Galileo.

Magz claimed that a missile hit WTC7.

Do you catch my drift here? In my opinion, anyone who believes in CF fantasies even after being presented all evidence and facts probably needs to seek help. Some more than others though. That is why once a twoofer has been presented evidence and chooses to ignore it, he needs to be ignored. After all, how much sense does it make to argue with someone who has a mental problem?

 

[Quad4_72]

Apparently not, as several members do continue to argue with, well, anyone.

Forgot to address this part. Yes I am well aware of this. That is why I made the pledge. People need to cease arguing with lunatics. It only furthers their fantasies and actually helps keep this nonsense alive.

 

[stateofgrace]

At the "Truth" movements peak in 2006, they still only managed to convince a small amount of people who were probably already unstable. The twoofers are now almost all of the way fizzled out. By continuing to debate them, this nonsense is kept alive. If they weren't getting any new converts back then, they sure as hell aren't getting any now. Its time to bury this crap and leave the truly deranged twoofers to their fantasies.

Quad, I understand your frustration, I really do. And yes I agree that it is time to bury this crap, to all intense and purpose it has been buried. There is no new subject being brought to the table now, it is the same regurgitated stuff over and over again. So yes, it is an option to say “simply ignores it, leave them to it". And I fully understand your decision to do this, but this does not mean that everybody has to adhere to this standard. Every member here is entitled to state his/her opinion, irrespective of the fact that it may have been stated a thousand times over and irrespective of how irritating this maybe. Equally so every member here as the option to respond in what ever manner they see fit, so long as they keep within their membership agreement.

Quad this is a public debating forum, every single person here is here through choice, nobody is forced to post or respond to a post they don't like. Nobody is here against their will; every member is here though their own free will. To start saying, we should ignore this and that, ignore this member, not respond in this manner or even stop responding totally is defeating the entire purpose of a debating forum. Yes I agree there are times when people post things here that are so silly they really deserve nothing other than to be ignored but this is an option, not a stipulation.

I have left this forum for weeks at a time, not ever bother to look at what is being said; sometimes I post often, sometimes not at all. Some members I ignore, some I respond to, whatever my post maybe, I write it simply because I choose to and in a manner of my own choosing. If restrictions are placed on me or anybody else as to how that response should be worded and to whom it should be directed then quite frankly I would prefer to not be part of that forum any further.

 

[Quad4_72]

Quad, I understand your frustration, I really do. And yes I agree that it is time to bury this crap, to all intense and purpose it has been buried. There is no new subject being brought to the table now, it is the same regurgitated stuff over and over again. So yes, it is an option to say “simply ignores it, leave them to it". And I fully understand your decision to do this, but this does not mean that everybody has to adhere to this standard. Every member here is entitled to state his/her opinion, irrespective of the fact that it may have been stated a thousand times over and irrespective of how irritating this maybe. Equally so every member here as the option to respond in what ever manner they see fit, so long as they keep within their membership agreement.

Quad this is a public debating forum, every single person here is here through choice, nobody is forced to post or respond to a post they don't like. Nobody is here against their will; every member is here though their own free will. To start saying, we should ignore this and that, ignore this member, not respond in this manner or even stop responding totally is defeating the entire purpose of a debating forum. Yes I agree there are times when people post things here that are so silly they really deserve nothing other than to be ignored but this is an option, not a stipulation.

I have left this forum for weeks at a time, not ever bother to look at what is being said; sometimes I post often, sometimes not at all. Some members I ignore, some I respond to, whatever my post maybe, I write it simply because I choose to and in a manner of my own choosing. If restrictions are placed on me or anybody else as to how that response should be worded and to whom it should be directed then quite frankly I would prefer to not be part of that forum any further.

Obviously, stateo, everyone is free to do as they wish. I don't think I ever implied that I want to force people to stop posting or that I am demanding everyone cease posting immediately. I presented my opinion and the reasoning behind it. I also attempted to show through my pledge that debating most twoofers is futile and everyone should realize that they are merely trolling, looking for JREFers to take the bait. Take it as it is. Now, I HIGHLY encourage everyone to "Just say NO to twoofers', but that is by no means a demand or anything of that nature.

 

[1337m4n]

Alright, let's try this out Myriad.

Basically what you're saying, and has been said many times on this forum, is that there is no debate. You're right, the "Truthers" are wrong.

This is true, but is not the point of the OP.

You've labeled and marginalized your opponent, so there can never be sincere debate. Your advocating for a tactic that prevents discourse.

False. The OP only states that leading/rhetorical questions should be avoided. Since you never answer leading/rhetorical questions anyway, you especially have no reason to be complaining. If every debunker adopts this tactic, debates on this forum should theoretically remain completely unchanged for you, since you never answered questions to begin with.

Jref should just make a decision whether or not they want to continue allowing this discussion to take place.

Evasion is not discussion.

As it is now, biased moderation will make it impossible to ask any of the legitimate questions, and continue to discuss the enormous amount of information that continues to appear, in any kind of a friendly, civil and productive way.

You have no evidence that the moderation of this forum is biased. I, on the other hand, have plenty of evidence that the moderation of this forum is, in fact, neutral. For instance, there's the fact that I have more yellow cards than you.

The evidence for neutral moderation currently outweighs the evidence for biased moderation, and therefore it is logical to assume the moderation is neutral until new evidence can be presented.

I think what is truly frustrating around here, is not how stupid and wrong the Twoofies are, but that there are aspects of the official story that are indefensible and buck up against anyone's critical thinking and reasoning skills.

This is false. Neither you nor anyone else has successfully demonstrated any falsehoods in what you term "the official story". The "official story" is defended by many thousands of engineers, aviation professionals, firefighters, security agents, and eyewitnesses across the globe, making the claim that it is "indefensible" provably false. And since critical thinking and reasoning processes (not to mention one's perception of their effectiveness) vary from person to person, the second part of your claim is nothing more than opinionated speculation.

So, seeing as the things that allegedly "frustrate" you are in fact matters of speculation and opinion, I think the thing that TRULY frustrates you is the that you desperately want there to be some sort of conspiracy surrounding 9/11, yet deep, deep down, you cannot think of any possible conspiracy that is even internally consistent, let alone fitting to all of the known evidence. It is true that it is frustrating for one part of your brain to want to believe something while the other part knows that it can't be true--this is why people often exclaim the words "I can't believe you did this!" upon finding out that their spouse has cheated on them, to give but one example. This is evidenced by the fact that, among other things, you demand a type of evidence in the Flight 93 case that has never been considered a necessity by professional air crash investigators in any other air crash investigation in all of US history, ever. You are leaping on the slightest perceived anomaly in hopes that it will point to some sort of conspiracy, even though deep down you know that the "anomaly" is meaningless.

I can understand why you want to limit the discussion because in a real debate on 9/11, you would have to rely on the complete honesty of the Bush administration.

Several things are wrong with this statement. First, it implies that the loss of leading/rhetorical questions will "limit the discussion" at all. This is false--one can have a debate without leading/rhetorical questions that will be just as educational as one with. The only difference would be the flavor and tone of the discussion (it might appear more boring to lay observers). Secondly, the phrase "real debate" is undefined in this context and therefore effectively meaningless other than to bait people into a hostile reaction. Third, the "official story" does not rely on the Bush Administration at all, because there are literally dozens of entities not connected with the Bush Administration which have provided, compiled, and interpreted the numerous evidence in favor of the "official story"--Protec, American Airlines, and the NY Port Authority are just a few of many examples.

Your use of the phrase "Bush Administration" demonstrates your true motive--you are not actually interested in the truth surrounding the 9/11 attacks, but rather in satisfying your hatred of Bush. You feel that since peaceful transfer of power occurred before Bush could be impeached, Bush's crimes (whether real or imagined) went unpunished, and you are trying to seek justice by desperately attempting to somehow pin the attacks of 9/11 on him. This is your true motivation in posting here.


...


...



...nah, sorry Myriad, I think I like my snide rhetorical questioning beatdown method better. Normally, when I read my posts back to myself, I think "yeah, I got him good!" but when I read this post back to myself, I have to fight off boredom-induced sleep. Fun over practicality, I always say.

 

[twinstead]

Yup, just as with the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd, sometimes you just gotta say, "Jane, you ignorant slut!".

 

[chillzero]

Jref should just make a decision whether or not they want to continue allowing this discussion to take place. As it is now, biased moderation will make it impossible to ask any of the legitimate questions, and continue to discuss the enormous amount of information that continues to appear, in any kind of a friendly, civil and productive way.

In the past 3 years this section has come under more discussion than any other when it comes to what the JREF do and do not want from the forum. It led to a split from the GS&P section, and then a further split from the general CT section. I do not see that this is an effective method for suppressing such discussion.

I personally advocated on two occasions for it to remain open and worked hard to draw certain lines of communication and information by which the section was to be judged and retained. I worked hard within the mod team to try and ensure both sides were treated equally despite often hugely unbalanced reporting from the members. I also on one occasion advocated for its closure, but returned to championing it after reviewing two threads started by the members here (without prompting from the mod team) which indicated that the inner community here is interested in keeping it alive, and civil.

Granted there are bad apples - on both sides. That happens in each of the little inner communites each section has, but none of those other forum section communities are at the same time so tightly knit and so clearly divided as this one. It's unique, and it's also a source of incredible amounts of information and discussion.

This section loses a high proportion of members in comparison to the rest, and it sees a lot of really good members suspended in the course of heated discussions. This is the area that I feel needs to be addressed here. Some people think it's great to 'see off' the opposition. I don't. That leaves you all talking amongst each other about nothing in particular, and that is the ultimate method to stifle any interesting discussion. You need opposition, or alternate viewpoints in order to stimulate debate. I think Myriad has highlighted one method that could be utilised on occasion to help achieve that. I don't think that every single post needs to turn into a dry essay, but there are plenty of examples when the member could have reconsidered and toned down their comments to another member, and making use of this style of post would have been much more effective.

I understand that many members are fed up addressing the same things over again. So why not set yourselves a new challenge and try a different approach? Play devil's advocate and try out discussing from a different point of view than usual. Or try out the method described by Myriad as an exercise in learning new techniques.


Alternately, you can all continue as you are now, and after a few more months of slating and bickering with those on the opposing 'side' the section will be closed because of the drain on moderation time and the regular loss of members, and the general overall incivility and lack of respect shown among the members. I can guarantee that if we don't hold these little 911CT based 'conferences' every so often on how to manage the section, and we don't remind each other regularly that we should be engaging in calm and civil discourse - if we can't quite manage 'friendly' - then we will lose this section.

 

[T.A.M.]

Basically what you're saying, and has been said many times on this forum, is that there is no debate. You're right, the "Truthers" are wrong.

You've labeled and marginalized your opponent, so there can never be sincere debate. Your advocating for a tactic that prevents discourse.

Jref should just make a decision whether or not they want to continue allowing this discussion to take place. As it is now, biased moderation will make it impossible to ask any of the legitimate questions, and continue to discuss the enormous amount of information that continues to appear, in any kind of a friendly, civil and productive way.

I think what is truly frustrating around here, is not how stupid and wrong the Twoofies are, but that there are aspects of the official story that are indefensible and buck up against anyone's critical thinking and reasoning skills.

I can understand why you want to limit the discussion because in a real debate on 9/11, you would have to rely on the complete honesty of the Bush administration.

Should we have open debates about Santa and the Easter Bunny as well? I am sure in this world of 6 Billion, you can find a few adults who believe in them, so should we engage in a full and honest debate about these childhood heroes?

I know this is an extreme...intentional to emphasize the point. The "evidence" for an inside job on 9/11 is flimsy at best, essentially speculation, anger, and paranoia (about coincidences for the most part).

We have a thread here that I tried to get going about legitimate questions of 9/11...a common ground for both "sides". You saw what happened to it. What "side" spoiled that thread Red? What "side" did its best to bait people out of debating these issues on that thread Red?

You want a real debate then (A) find a topic that has serious evidence for both sides, and (B) find a few people who can intelligently debate it.

So far I have not seen either.

TAM

 

[1337m4n]

Should we have open debates about Santa and the Easter Bunny as well? I am sure in this world of 6 Billion, you can find a few adults who believe in them, so should we engage in a full and honest debate about these childhood heroes?

I know this is an extreme...intentional to emphasize the point. The "evidence" for an inside job on 9/11 is flimsy at best, essentially speculation, anger, and paranoia (about coincidences for the most part).

We have a thread here that I tried to get going about legitimate questions of 9/11...a common ground for both "sides". You saw what happened to it. What "side" spoiled that thread Red? What "side" did its best to bait people out of debating these issues on that thread Red?

You want a real debate then (A) find a topic that has serious evidence for both sides, and (B) find a few people who can intelligently debate it.

So far I have not seen either.

TAM

You're doing it wrong.

 

[RedIbis]

Tam and Chill,
I won't argue the fact that there are disruptive posters who troll and rile up the resident posters, but as I've explained before as we're not children any longer, we are totally responsible for our own reactions, so I don't buy into this idea that the sub-forum is being destroyed by trollish twoofies.

Instead, I think that the problem is that the Inside Job theory is considered defeated, a foregone conclusion, woo woo conspiracy nonsense perpetuated by Truthers, Twoofies, woo woo nutbars, etc. As soon as labeling starts, as innocuous as you think it is, sincere debate cannot occur. I'm not, and refuse to be, lumped in with people who deny the Holocaust or consider the entire US gov't evil. Labeling conflates your opponents' positions. As soon as there is a rigid adherence to belief, skepticism has ceased.

I know I'm not in the majority of "Truthers". I can spell, I use the shift key, and I don't care to know what "pwned" is. So a discussion with the two of you, members whom I consider among the most friendly, civil and objective is a bit pointless.

In short, I'm interested to see how this goes. Obviously, this topic generates a great deal of interest and emotion. The 9/11 debate is not over, nor will it be over any time soon. I'm just curious to see if one of the best forums on the web will host this difficult discussion or not. As it is now, the discussions are no longer productive, and to repeat my basic point, a culture of condescension and disrespect for a position has been allowed to flourish, which appears to me to be counter to true critical thinking and discourse.

To cite a brief example, TAM, you must admit that you have considered the LIHOP scenario more plausible than MIHOP. But LIHOP is indeed conspiracy. We're talking about a complex, historical event. Unfortunately, around here questioning the official story has been put on equal footing with Bigfoot theories and psychics. It's not.

 

[chillzero]

I don't buy into this idea that the sub-forum is being destroyed by trollish twoofies.

I think if you check you'll find that I never claimed it was, and I was careful to point out that I see fault on both sides.

Instead, I think that the problem is that the Inside Job theory is considered defeated, a foregone conclusion, woo woo conspiracy nonsense perpetuated by Truthers, Twoofies, woo woo nutbars, etc.

And by some people it absolutely is.
By others the exact opposite is true and they believe that the truth will out in the end and the debunkers will all eat their words.

Therefore, what we have is basis for discussion. There's no point in trying to generate discussion where everyone agrees. It's just a matter of keeping it civil.

As soon as labeling starts, as innocuous as you think it is, sincere debate cannot occur.

I agree, and I never called it innocuous. I tend to avoid labels as much as possible - other than what a member may have labelled themself. And more than once I've found myself on the sharp end of people's posts in this section for pointing out that they are not doing themselves any favours by leaping to conclusions about 'the other side' or by generalising about them as regards intelligence, likelihood of violence, etc.

I'm not, and refuse to be, lumped in with people who deny the Holocaust or consider the entire US gov't evil. Labeling conflates your opponents' positions. As soon as there is a rigid adherence to belief, skepticism has ceased.

Good for you. However, in order to undertake an honest and full discussion it also help to lay out your position and defend it, rather than hide behind implications and veiled theories that you can later claim you never stated as fact. This is where people become frustrated and consider the opponent as being dishonest, and that's when things tend to turn toward bickering instead of discussion. Everyone can play a small part in avoiding that, in my opinion.

I know I'm not in the majority of "Truthers". I can spell, I use the shift key, and I don't care to know what "pwned" is.

Wow.
In one paragraph you complain about labelling and generalising people and correctly point out how it's a weak method for debate, then follow it up with a rather snide generalisation of your own - the like of which we are supposed to be trying to move way from? I've never referred to CTists in these terms, precisely because of the reasons we just seemed to be in agreement on a moment ago.

So a discussion with the two of you, members whom I consider among the most friendly, civil and objective is a bit pointless.

Firstly, I don't see how this follows from your previous statement. Secondly, why is it pointless to have a discussion with those who you admit are trying to be civil and objective?

In short, I'm interested to see how this goes. Obviously, this topic generates a great deal of interest and emotion. The 9/11 debate is not over, nor will it be over any time soon. I'm just curious to see if one of the best forums on the web will host this difficult discussion or not. As it is now, the discussions are no longer productive, and to repeat my basic point, a culture of condescension and disrespect for a position has been allowed to flourish, which appears to me to be counter to true critical thinking and discourse.

A tone of condescension and disrespect that you are happy to utilise yourself?

Unfortunately, around here questioning the official story has been put on equal footing with Bigfoot theories and psychics. It's not.

Your claim here is clearly refuted by the fact that the section was deliberately divided out from the section where Bigfoot and psychics are discussed. Some of the reasoning was to do with how many threads were generated and pushed other topics off the page, but that's not all. The decision could easily have swung the other way and shut down discussion on the forum at all. As we know and as was much discussed at the time Randi did not support giving a platform to those who disrespect the people who died and suffered that day.

The section has been given merit, space and time to develop, but as I said above, it could still face its own destruction if people can't get a handle on how to have a civil conversation.

I'm interested in seeing this discussion play out as well, and I wonder if the title is a little misleading.

 

[FineWine]

Basically what you're saying, and has been said many times on this forum, is that there is no debate. You're right, the "Truthers" are wrong.

You've labeled and marginalized your opponent, so there can never be sincere debate. Your advocating for a tactic that prevents discourse.

Jref should just make a decision whether or not they want to continue allowing this discussion to take place. As it is now, biased moderation will make it impossible to ask any of the legitimate questions, and continue to discuss the enormous amount of information that continues to appear, in any kind of a friendly, civil and productive way.

I think what is truly frustrating around here, is not how stupid and wrong the Twoofies are, but that there are aspects of the official story that are indefensible and buck up against anyone's critical thinking and reasoning skills.

I can understand why you want to limit the discussion because in a real debate on 9/11, you would have to rely on the complete honesty of the Bush administration.

Your response to Myriad's thoughtful OP is wonderfully revealing. You have established a reputation for certain specific types of behavior. I'm not trying to be insulting, as there are "truthers" here who are undoubtedly less intelligent, more abrasive, more obviously disturbed than you. I will hazard a guess that I speak for others as well as myself when I state that attempting to debate with you is like chomping down on a pastry shell that the chef forgot to put the cream into. One expects to taste something--preferably something delicious, but something. The shock of encountering nothing, the absence of something, can be disconcerting.

I've made an abstract charge, so my responsibility is to flesh it out. You state that "there are aspects of the official story that are indefensible." The statement is demonstrably false. If it were true, your strange movement would have scored more than a major rhetorical success; it would have provided grounds for being taken seriously, for being more than a motley assortment of agenda-driven America-haters, anti-Semites, and profoundly anti-intellectual cranks of all stripes. That hasn't happened. In almost eight years, the "truth" movement has not accomplished a blessed thing. It has failed to produce a shred of evidence for any of its endlessly-repeated myths.

Again, let's examine the word you chose, "indefensible." The mainstream account is, in fact, easily defended, resting as it does on a mountain of real evidence and sound science. Myriad has counseled us wisely. What purpose is served by asking--demanding, actually--that you show something that we can't defend? You can't do it. You've never come close to doing it. Nobody who shares your delusions can do it. It can't be done! Judged purely as a fight, debunkers scored a knockout over "truthers" years ago. Your movement is running on fumes, and they smell pretty bad.

Your trademark evasiveness is on display in your inane jab at the honesty of the Bush administration. What does George Bush have to do with the science contained in the NIST reports? How do Bush and Cheney affect the DNA testing done on the remains of crash victims? Were the air traffic controllers somehow pressured by the "Bush adminstration" to fabricate wholly fictitious accounts of the morning's events? Did Bush oversee the collection of physical evidence? Was Bush's input helpful to the researchers at Purdue and Berkeley in designing their models of the collapses?

These are not questions to provoke a debate. These questions ended the debate. They are questions every sane person can answer. You make people laugh when you prattle about "critical thinking and reasoning skills." You and your movement are devoid of such skills. You make no effort whatever to reason, to examine evidence critically. You start with an absurd thesis, chosen to satisfy an emotional need, and you close your mind to everything--and I mean EVERYTHING--that contradicts it.

Why would debunkers want to limit the discussion? Expand the discussion to its outer reaches and your side still has absolutely nothing. You pulled another rabbit from the "truther" bag of tricks when you mentioned "the enormous amount of information that continues to appear." True, various documents have been declassified. We can thank Mike W. for keeping us informed of recent developments. It is clear that no information even faintly supportive of your side's discredited myths has appeared or will appear. You try, unsuccessfully, to create the illusion of an ongoing process. Face it--you're dead in the water. The misnamed truth movement started with a bunch of internally inconsistent fables, was forced to lie more flagrantly as those fables were systematically demolished, and now finds itself reduced to recycling ancient garbage for want of anything to say.

Ryan Mackey delivered the verdict a couple of years ago: It's Over.

 

[Quad4_72]

I think if you check you'll find that I never claimed it was, and I was careful to point out that I see fault on both sides.

This is a very true statement chill. There is fault on both sides. To use my metaphor, the twoofers are the harmful lit cigarette. Some of the JREF members are the smokers. The ones who choose to pick up that cigarette are just as much at fault as the cigarette itself. If they could just say no, then the cigarette would just burn out, and eventually disappear. Its the ones who choose to take that drag that are at fault.

 

[T.A.M.]

Tam and Chill,
I won't argue the fact that there are disruptive posters who troll and rile up the resident posters, but as I've explained before as we're not children any longer, we are totally responsible for our own reactions, so I don't buy into this idea that the sub-forum is being destroyed by trollish twoofies.

We are all adults, or close to it, but we are also all human, with human emotions and reactions...and this topic is a severely emotionally charged one. Some of the low life truthers left (yes I know this is exactly what we are talking about but it is how I feel here) on this forum know how emotionally charged it is, and use it to get a rise out of people here. I believe they do this (A) to make themselves feel better, and (B) to try and get the reactors suspended or banned...I will not name names.

Instead, I think that the problem is that the Inside Job theory is considered defeated, a foregone conclusion, woo woo conspiracy nonsense perpetuated by Truthers, Twoofies, woo woo nutbars, etc. As soon as labeling starts, as innocuous as you think it is, sincere debate cannot occur.

I agree, name calling, baiting, taunting, are all great inhibitors of debate, and it comes from both sides. However, the facts do not lie. The truth movement is in a regression, both in terms of public exposure, and in terms of followers/believers. Most of this, is as we expected, the result of Obama winning, and the Bush hatred now being essentially meaningless.

I'm not, and refuse to be, lumped in with people who deny the Holocaust or consider the entire US gov't evil. Labeling conflates your opponents' positions. As soon as there is a rigid adherence to belief, skepticism has ceased.

The only thing I adhere to is evidence, and facts. However, in the absence of those (which sometimes there is) I rely on the experienced opinions of RECOGNIZED experts. I was trained that way in medicine. Evidence first, preferred in the Randomized Double Blind Control Trial, but where evidence is not to be had, rely on the opinions of those with training in the field.

I know I'm not in the majority of "Truthers". I can spell, I use the shift key, and I don't care to know what "pwned" is. So a discussion with the two of you, members whom I consider among the most friendly, civil and objective is a bit pointless.

Why would you consider discussion with myself and Chill to be pointless. Should we not be the very people that an open, honest debate, might produce fruit?

In short, I'm interested to see how this goes. Obviously, this topic generates a great deal of interest and emotion. The 9/11 debate is not over, nor will it be over any time soon.

I agree. I have never said the debate is over, merely the movement. I know Obama has said the debate is over, but I think he was using hyperbole there.

I'm just curious to see if one of the best forums on the web will host this difficult discussion or not. As it is now, the discussions are no longer productive, and to repeat my basic point, a culture of condescension and disrespect for a position has been allowed to flourish, which appears to me to be counter to true critical thinking and discourse.

The position has been allowed to flourish, because the one ultimate rule that I feel holds true at JREF is freedom of speech and opinion, as long as the rules are not broken, and as long as you do not personally attack or insult a member.

To cite a brief example, TAM, you must admit that you have considered the LIHOP scenario more plausible than MIHOP. But LIHOP is indeed conspiracy. We're talking about a complex, historical event. Unfortunately, around here questioning the official story has been put on equal footing with Bigfoot theories and psychics. It's not.

I have considered that in some forms, let us say that elements of the USG knew more, that attacks were coming, and purposely allowed it, LIHOP is MORE plausible than Controlled Demolition, CGI, Laser Beams, yes...but so far I have seen no compelling evidence in the slightest, to indicate LIHOP is the case. For that matter, I for some reason thought you were more toward the LIHOP/LIHOI area of things, and was very disappointed to discover you were MIHOP.

TAM

 

[BenBurch]

Basically what you're saying, and has been said many times on this forum, is that there is no debate. You're right, the "Truthers" are wrong.

You've labeled and marginalized your opponent, so there can never be sincere debate. Your advocating for a tactic that prevents discourse.

Jref should just make a decision whether or not they want to continue allowing this discussion to take place. As it is now, biased moderation will make it impossible to ask any of the legitimate questions, and continue to discuss the enormous amount of information that continues to appear, in any kind of a friendly, civil and productive way.

I think what is truly frustrating around here, is not how stupid and wrong the Twoofies are, but that there are aspects of the official story that are indefensible and buck up against anyone's critical thinking and reasoning skills.

I can understand why you want to limit the discussion because in a real debate on 9/11, you would have to rely on the complete honesty of the Bush administration.

Have you called UAL yet, to ask them how much wreckage they received from Flt 93, and what its disposition was?

 

[chillzero]

Ben, come on - keep it on topic, and pay at least the slightest respect for the OP?

 

[Myriad]

Have you called UAL yet, to ask them how much wreckage they received from Flt 93, and what its disposition was?

Good Lord, Ben, I said I already had thousands of examples to choose from. I appreciate your making the effort to provide more, but it's really not needed!

Respectfully,
Myriad